Can politicians be morally good or is politics destined to involve 'dirty hands' or the loss of integrity, as many modern philosophers claim? In this title, Susan Mendus seeks to address these important questions to assess whether this apparent tension between morality and politics is real and, if so, why.
An introduction to a symposium on the policy making process of morality policy, or the legal sanction of right & wrong when no societal consensus exists. The increased interest in morality policy is identified, positing that such policy is governed by different kinds of political activity than the policy models based on economic & class interest. The agreed-upon characteristics of morality policy are discussed, with first-principal issues, the high salience to the polity, & the unusually high level of citizen participation being identified. Other disputed components of morality policy are addressed, including the different types of morality policy. Further, the role of opinion measuring mechanism, interest groups, & questions about implementation & compliance surrounding morality policy are examined. The seven articles in the symposium are introduced. It is concluded that morality politics does indeed constitute a unique type of politics. 43 References. T. Noland
Public disenchantment with politics has become a key feature of the world in which we live. In this book, Susan Mendus asks if politicians can be morally good or whether politics is destined to involve dirty hands or the loss of integrity, as many modern philosophers claim.
Complicating the ancient debate over the intersection of morality and politics are diverse definitions of fundamental concepts: the right and the good, virtue and vice, personal liberty and public interest. Divisions abound, also, about whether politics should be held to a higher moral standard or whether pragmatic considerations or realpolitik should prevail. Perhaps the two poles are represented most conspicuously by Aristotle and Machiavelli. These essays address perennial concerns in political and moral theory and underscore the rekindled yearning of many to hold the political realm to a higher standard despite the skepticism of dissenters who question the likelihood or even the desirability of success
In: Far Eastern affairs: a Russian journal on China, Japan and Asia-Pacific Region ; a quarterly publication of the Institute for Far Eastern Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, Band 1, S. 13-21
Drawing primarily on interpretations of Machiavelli, this article describes four conceptions of the relationship between politics and morality, together with key features of politics and morality that underlie them. One conception is manifest in the traditional image of Machiavelli as an immoralist and corrupt founder of the tradition of reason of state, who supposes politics to be a realm of action distinct from, and in conflict with, morality. A second conception, which in contrast to the first is captured in a view of Machiavelli as a moralist, contends that politics places on morality distinct demands which morality is nonetheless able to accommodate by distinguishing between public and private ethics. A third position on the relationship between politics and morality, suggested by interpretations that depict Machiavelli as a moralist of a deeply troubled sort, conceives of politics as a realm of tragedy. In a fourth and final view, politics is said to be the source of morality, a conception manifest in interpretations of Machiavelli that describe him as advocating a presumed pagan worldview. Rather than championing any one of these perspectives on the relation between politics and morality, the position adopted here is that each has something important to say about the perennial questions regarding the nature of politics, morality, and the relation between them.
The aim of the paper is to reconstruct and analyze Alvydas Jokubaitis's understanding of politics. It is argued that Jokubaitis couples politics with morality in opposition to the liberal project of the autonomy of politics, which seeks to separate these two fields of human activity. According to Jokubaitis, politics is a realm of realization of the spiritual side of human nature. That is the reason why, through morality, he also tries to align politics with other domains of human spirituality, such as religion and metaphysics. What is common to politics, morality, religion, and metaphysics is the sphere of normativity, i.e., that of purposes, principles, and imperatives. At the same time, Jokubaitis attacks those schools of modern thought which interpret politics as corresponding solely to the physical, animal side of human nature. In this regard, positivism and scientism are singled out as the crudest attempts to misconstrue the nature of politics. The paper is based on a conviction that the acknowledgement of the importance of morality allows one to piece together Jokubaitis's various considerations about the nature and distinctiveness of politics into a coherent whole.